Holmes v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2015 Ark. LEXIS 347
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Holmes was discharged from Bent Creek Partners in June 2014 for misconduct related to work attendance.
- Holmes filed for unemployment benefits June 24, 2014; claimed last day was June 12 and laid off June 16 for lack of work, which Bent Creek disputed.
- The Department denied benefits for misconduct and for willful misrepresentation in the initial claim.
- The Appeal Tribunal held a hearing Sept. 2, 2014 and affirmed the Department, finding willful misconduct and misrepresentation.
- The Board affirmed with a minor factual modification; Holmes timely appealed to the Arkansas judiciary.
- The court reviews Board findings under substantial evidence and defers to Board credibility determinations; it upholds Board’s conclusions on misconduct and misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discharge for misconduct in connection with the work | Holmes argues he was laid off for lack of work, not misconduct | Board found he was discharged for misconduct due to unexcused absences | Yes, substantial evidence supports misconduct finding |
| Willful misrepresentation | Holmes alleges no willful misrepresentation | Board found he knowingly misrepresented circumstances of separation | Yes, substantial evidence supports misrepresentation finding |
| Standard of review and credibility determinations | - | - | Board findings sustain under substantial evidence; credibility resolved by Board |
| Evidence sufficiency for knowledge of layoff vs. misconduct | Holmes asserts lack of work misinterpretation; relied on employer statements | Board credited the employer; conflicts resolved in employer’s favor | Yes, substantial evidence supports both misconduct and misrepresentation |
| Impact of Board modification on date of contact by supervisor | Modification does not alter key facts | No material effect on outcome | No reversible error; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hiner v. Dir., 61 Ark. App. 139, 965 S.W.2d 785 (1998) (substantial evidence standard in unemployment appeals; credibility matters for Board)
- Thomas v. Dir., 55 Ark. App. 101, 931 S.W.2d 146 (1996) (misconduct scope and denial of benefits when actions show deliberate disregard)
- Johnson v. Dir., 84 Ark. App. 349, 141 S.W.3d 1 (2004) (credibility and evidentiary deferral to Board findings)
- Stagecoach Motel v. Krause, 267 Ark. 1093, 593 S.W.2d 495 (1980) (procedureal sufficiency in administrative hearings; deference to Board)
- Beeson v. Landcoast, 43 Ark. App. 132, 862 S.W.2d 846 (1993) (limits on cross-examination adversarial tone in fact-finding)